Going Beyond Research on Goal Setting: A Proposed Role for Organizational Psychological Capital of Family Firms

Kotlar and De Massis found that membership assortment and the number of organizational members, as well as the imminence of succession, influence goal diversity in family firms. They also showed that goal diversity can be managed and family-centered goals can be stabilized through professional and familial social interactions, driving the formation of collective commitment to family- centered goals (CCFG). Using this research as a point of departure, we propose that CCFG may impact family firm economic and noneconomic performance. Furthermore, we introduce to the family firm literature the organizational psychological capital (OPC), consisting of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism. We also suggest that OPC may be more prevalent in family firms than in nonfamily firms. Moreover, OPC of family firms may play an important role in the link between CCFG and economic as well as noneconomic performance

Going Beyond Research on Goal Setting: A Proposed Role for Organizational Psychological Capital of Family Firms

Kotlar and De Massis found that membership assortment and the number of organizational members, as well as the imminence of succession, influence goal diversity in family firms. They also showed that goal diversity can be managed and family-centered goals can be stabilized through professional and familial social interactions, driving the formation of collective commitment to family- centered goals (CCFG). Using this research as a point of departure, we propose that CCFG may impact family firm economic and noneconomic performance. Furthermore, we introduce to the family firm literature the organizational psychological capital (OPC), consisting of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism. We also suggest that OPC may be more prevalent in family firms than in nonfamily firms. Moreover, OPC of family firms may play an important role in the link between CCFG and economic as well as noneconomic performance

The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and image

Drawing from organizational identity theory, we explore how family ownership and family expectations influence family firm image and entrepreneurial risk taking, and ultimately firm performance. We find support for a fully mediated model, utilizing a sample of 163 Swiss family firms. Family ownership was shown to positively influence the development of a family firm image. High family expectations of the firm leader was shown to promote a family firm image and risk taking. In turn, risk taking and family firm image contributed to firm performance. Accordingly, our study identifies why family ownership and family expectations can benefit family firm performance—through their influence on family firm image and entrepreneurial risk taking

Expanding the notion of entrepreneurship capital in American counties: A panel data analysis of 2002-2007.

Entrepreneurship capital refers to the factors of a region that drives new businesses (Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004). This study considers industry growth and performance in manufacturing, retail and service as components of entrepreneurship capital to drive the long-term growth of new establishments. Using a panel data of 2,940 counties from 2002–2007, our results support the notion that the overall new venture activity is benefited by the industry growth and performance. Future research directions and practical implications are also discussed

The propensity to use non-family managers’ incentive compensation in small and medium size family firms.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use the socio-emotional wealth perspective to examine how the level of family involvement reduces the propensity to use incentives to non-family managers in small to medium-sized enterprises (SME) family firms. Design/methodology/approach – Primary data were collected from US firms. To evaluate the hypotheses, a logit model was employed on a final sample of 2,019 small family firms. Findings – Results suggest that family influence and control and intra-family transgenerational succession intentions are negatively related to the propensity to use incentives. Also, the interaction effects of family management and ownership reduce the propensity to use incentives. Originality/value – The paper’s empirical findings imply that despite their potential economic benefits, family involvement reduces the probability that incentives will be offered to non-family managers because such incentives are perceived to be inconsistent with the preservation of the family’s socioemotional wealth. Also, choices that reflect a preference for socioemotional wealth may not only be a function of decision framing and loss aversion but also by the size of the economic pay-offs that might be available. The findings suggest that non-family managers in SME family firms may be affected by a family’s preoccupation with its socioemotional endowments. Thus, the authors expect that this paper provides further avenues to explore the decisions about attaining non-economic and economic goals and other strategic issues in family firms

Family Involvement and the Use of Corporate Governance Provisions Protecting Controlling versus Noncontrolling Owners

Drawing on agency theory and corporate governance, we first classify the corporate governance provisions within the context of family firms. Then, we probe the influence of family involvement (i.e. family ownership and family management) in corporate governance on the use of governance provisions protecting controlling and noncontrolling owners. Specifically, we suggest that family ownership affects the use of governance provisions protecting controlling and noncontrolling owners. We also suggest that family management will moderate the relationships between family ownership and the use of these governance provisions. Finally, we discuss future research directions and insights for practitione

The propensity to use incentive compensation for non-family managers in SME family firms

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to use the socio-emotional wealth perspective to examine how the level of family involvement reduces the propensity to use incentives to non-family managers in small to medium-sized enterprises (SME) family firms. Design/methodology/approach – Primary data were collected from US firms. To evaluate the hypotheses, a logit model was employed on a final sample of 2,019 small family firms.Findings– Results suggest that family influence and control and intra-family transgenerational succession intentions are negatively related to the propensity to use incentives. Also, the interaction effects of family management and ownership reduce the propensity to use incentives.Originality/value– The paper’s empirical findings imply that despite their potential economic benefits, family involvement reduces the probability that incentives will be offered to non-family managers because such incentives are perceived to be inconsistent with the preservation of the family’s socioemotional wealth. Also, choices that reflect a preference for socioemotional wealth may not only be a function of decision framing and loss aversion but also by the size of the economic pay-offs that might be available. The findings suggest that non-family managers in SME family firms may be affected by a family’s preoccupation with its socioemotional endowments. Thus, the authors expect that this paper provides further avenues to explore the decisions about attaining non-economic and economic goals and other strategic issues in family firms

Nonfamily Employees’ Perceptions of Person-Organization Fit and Voluntary Turnover in Family Firms

The article investigates the employment of non-family employees by family firms. The opinions such employees hold regarding the procedures and policies of such firms, and the impact of these opinions on employee turnover, are analyzed. Theories of person-organization fit and stewardship are used to explain the effects of family influence on non-family employees' perceptions. It is said that up to two-thirds of all businesses may be owned or managed by family groups. The distinctive features of such arrangements, in terms of both facilitation and restriction, are addressed

Industry and Information Asymmetry: The Case of the Employment of Non-Family Managers in Small and Medium-Sized Family Firms

As family firms begin to professionalize, they face an important crossroads in deciding whether to employ non-family managers. To preserve socioemotional wealth and minimize agency costs, family owners may resist employing non-family managers. However, industry sector may play a role that influences the employment of non-family managers. We argue that the family's reluctance will be stronger in industries where information asymmetries make monitoring managers more difficult. For industries where monitoring is easier, the benefits of employing non-family managers may offset the loss in socioemotional wealth and increase in agency costs. Results based on a sample of 965 small and medium-sized retail and manufacturing firms confirm our predictions

Does Size Matter? The Moderating Effects of Firm Size on the Employment of Non-Family Managers in Privately-Held Family SMEs

Family firms' decisions to hire nonfamily managers are influenced by agency costs, socioemotional wealth concerns, and the availability of high-quality nonfamily managers in the labor pool. We hypothesize that owing to these factors, family ownership and intrafamily succession intentions will be negatively associated with the proportion of nonfamily managers in private small- and medium-sized (SME) family firms. However, firm size is hypothesized to positively moderate those relationships because as family firm size increases, the benefits of hiring nonfamily managers rise faster than the costs. Tobit regression analyses of 7,299 private SMEs support our hypotheses